Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > Special Forces > Base Camp

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-01-2007, 21:05   #226
Guy
Quiet Professional
 
Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: OCONUS...again
Posts: 4,702
Oh GOD!

Quote:
Originally Posted by txzen
I called pinnacle a few months ago and I believe they said that the weight of the full torso wrap armor was 35 pounds if memory serves. Note that I believe the full torso wrap covers more than front back and side sapi plates. And no I have not worn any body armor.
Then STFU!

My knees ache just hearing 35lbs of extra shit to run with!
Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2007, 22:43   #227
txzen
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 39
You guys are rough :)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/2007/NIJ07057.htm NIJ, "OJP's research, development, and evaluation component, has reviewed evidence provided by the body armor manufacturer and has determined that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the body armor model will maintain its ballistic performance over its six-year declared warranty period."

The current issue I have been looking into has nothing to do with forcing anyone to use anything just learning more abou the NIJ certifications and revocations.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/2007/NIJ07057.htm It is a very short read. 1st paragraph found non compliance 2nd paragraph didn't convince nij with evidence provided by the manufacturer, pinnacle I think, that the NIJ compliant bullet resistance would hold for 6 months. And thats the only reason I see. That is all the reason it takes according to the other cached link I posted previously not convincing them with evidence they must provide about the 2005 interum requirements of NIJ. 3rd paragraph says wear it until it is replaced because it is better than nothing, 4th paragraph buy and wear vests that NIJ approved.

The final issue is that, yes sfft, and Robert Crane have said that 5 and 6 year old vests have been tested and passed NIJ level testing and that info was given to the NIJ.
They seemed to be right about the NIJ release on the decertification and I think someone in the national lab in Wichita, Kansas would not like being lied about and probably would have denied it by now, but it could still happen. I know US Test Lab is confidential with it's clients but if you lie about results I bet that would break the agreement. I am not sure of course.

Last edited by txzen; 09-01-2007 at 23:00.
txzen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2007, 23:16   #228
Guy
Quiet Professional
 
Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: OCONUS...again
Posts: 4,702
txzen:

Why do you keep quoting studies/articles?

Many of us have worn body armor before yet: YOU fail to realize this fact!
Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2007, 23:45   #229
txzen
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 39
That was in response to a request of where I got the information on if I only looked one place for the info on the NIJ decertification.

I can't find if Weight and Comfort or wearability play any role in NIJ certifications. They say " The weight and comfort of soft body armor is inversely proportional to the level of ballistic protection that it provides."

If you have worn scalar and rigid it would interesting to know if the reports that the weight distrobution is better on one than the other is noticable or if the shear weight is overwhelming even with good weight distrobution.

I sorta want to say again that I haven't called for anyone to wear anything or for anyone to test anything again or that anyone should be fired or any gear replaced I just have had some questions about the NIJ certification. Weight and comfort are an issue someone else could talk about.

Has anyone worn scalar armor?
txzen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2007, 08:37   #230
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by txzen
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/2007/NIJ07057.htm NIJ, "OJP's research, development, and evaluation component, has reviewed evidence provided by the body armor manufacturer and has determined that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the body armor model will maintain its ballistic performance over its six-year declared warranty period."

The current issue I have been looking into has nothing to do with forcing anyone to use anything just learning more abou the NIJ certifications and revocations.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/2007/NIJ07057.htm It is a very short read. 1st paragraph found non compliance 2nd paragraph didn't convince nij with evidence provided by the manufacturer, pinnacle I think, that the NIJ compliant bullet resistance would hold for 6 months. And thats the only reason I see. That is all the reason it takes according to the other cached link I posted previously not convincing them with evidence they must provide about the 2005 interum requirements of NIJ. 3rd paragraph says wear it until it is replaced because it is better than nothing, 4th paragraph buy and wear vests that NIJ approved.

The final issue is that, yes sfft, and Robert Crane have said that 5 and 6 year old vests have been tested and passed NIJ level testing and that info was given to the NIJ.

They seemed to be right about the NIJ release on the decertification and I think someone in the national lab in Wichita, Kansas would not like being lied about and probably would have denied it by now, but it could still happen. I know US Test Lab is confidential with it's clients but if you lie about results I bet that would break the agreement. I am not sure of course.
That does not address warranty concerns, it means that the vest does not last for its intended lifespan.

It could delaminate and fail tomorrow, with that statement. Sure, it could last six years, or it might fail the first time it goes through a temperature cycle. NIJ does no environmental testing. I am sure that you can find older vests that will pass, especially if they were stored in climate controlled conditions and were not dropped, contaminated, etc. There are many cars that are rated as unreliable that if unused, will look and operate fine.

If you are selling vests, and some will pass, while others will not, what do you think is an acceptable percentage of defective ones to buy for our soldiers? Will you take the word of a company that lied about NIJ certification and sewed NIJ certification labels in uncertified vests? How about an organization like SFTT that supported them?

Note that we have not said that scalar armor will not be a technology that has no promise. What we are saying is that the current version, manufactured by Pinnacle, is too heavy, unreliable, and expensive to be fielded, and the company has a checked history of untrustworthiness. I wish Mr. Bain all of the luck in the world with a newer generation of the armor.

None of us on this board want anything less than the best for our brothers serving in harm's way. At the same time, we do not want a bunch of defective gear fielded to them that will jeopardize their lives because of a media frenzy. Can you imagine the hatchet job that the same network that bought into the hype would produce, should the armor be fielded and prove in combat to be defective, killing a number of US soldiers? I think that the Army (and DoD) have given Pinnacle more than a fair opportunity, and have been taken advantage of in return. Fool me once, shame on you....

Yes, I have briefly worn one of the scalar vests, as well as the IBA. The DS version of the scalar in an equivalent level of protection and coverage is much heavier, and more flexible. I am not willing to add almost 20 pounds to my load for the advantage of more flexible armor. At one time, I was looking at purchasing one of the DS vests. When I called Pinnacle, and spoke with Murray Neal, he told me that I should go with a Level III vest, since it provided Level IV coverage. In fact, it does not. Given the number of lies, misleading statements, and prevarications that we have heard from Pinnacle, why should we trust them now? You want to take their word for it and jock up a bunch of soldiers in a product that costs almost twice as much, weighs 20 pounds more, and melts in the shade in Baghdad in the Army's own testing, based on the statements to the contrary of a known liar and a crackpot website?

Again, I have to ask, since you do not wear the armor, or work in the armor industry, what is your interest in perpetuating this argument? Do you just like to argue, and have randomly picked this topic?

TR
The Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2007, 11:31   #231
smp52
Guerrilla
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 122
Quote:
If you are selling vests, and some will pass, while others will not, what do you think is an acceptable percentage of defective ones to buy for our soldiers? Will you take the word of a company that lied about NIJ certification and sewed NIJ certification labels in uncertified vests? How about an organization like SFTT that supported them?
On the munitions side of the house, defects deemed as critical are held to the requirement of 1 Critical defect/ million (produced). While this may be impractical for some manufacturing environments and the DOD works around it to help producers, critical defect escapes (even one) from a manufacturers facility is due cause for shutdown of their plant until the issue can be resolved. A critical defect 'escape' for body armor translates into injury/death for the war fighter as it would for munitions, too ( in-bore detonation, falling short, and more).

IMHO, the public at large does not understand the quality requirements DOD places upon its producers. I can only assume that systems such as body armor have similar if not more stringent requirements for quality. This is all after a system meets user needs first to begin with ( by all objective evidence, DS has not).

txzen: Risk assessments are made by PMs, they do not gamble.
smp52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2007, 11:36   #232
Team Sergeant
Quiet Professional
 
Team Sergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 20,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by txzen
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/2007/NIJ07057.htm NIJ, "OJP's research, development, and evaluation component, has reviewed evidence provided by the body armor manufacturer and has determined that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the body armor model will maintain its ballistic performance over its six-year declared warranty period."

The current issue I have been looking into has nothing to do with forcing anyone to use anything just learning more abou the NIJ certifications and revocations.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/2007/NIJ07057.htm It is a very short read. 1st paragraph found non compliance 2nd paragraph didn't convince nij with evidence provided by the manufacturer, pinnacle I think, that the NIJ compliant bullet resistance would hold for 6 months. And thats the only reason I see. That is all the reason it takes according to the other cached link I posted previously not convincing them with evidence they must provide about the 2005 interum requirements of NIJ. 3rd paragraph says wear it until it is replaced because it is better than nothing, 4th paragraph buy and wear vests that NIJ approved.

The final issue is that, yes sfft, and Robert Crane have said that 5 and 6 year old vests have been tested and passed NIJ level testing and that info was given to the NIJ.

They seemed to be right about the NIJ release on the decertification and I think someone in the national lab in Wichita, Kansas would not like being lied about and probably would have denied it by now, but it could still happen. I know US Test Lab is confidential with it's clients but if you lie about results I bet that would break the agreement. I am not sure of course.

I will tell you this only once, do not hyperlink anything from defensereview.com or SFTT.org to this website. Both are nothing more than internet tabloids. If that is what you read so be it, none of it will be posted on Professionalsoldiers.com.

You now have my full attention.

Team Sergeant

You're also quoting Wikipedia! Your days posting on this website are almost over. (Wikipedia is not even allowed to be used as a reference in most colleges and other places of higher education.) Drink your koolaid but spare us your comments concerning dragons. This is your last warning.
Team Sergeant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2007, 12:46   #233
SF_BHT
Quiet Professional
 
SF_BHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sneaking back and forth across the Border
Posts: 6,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Sergeant
I will tell you this only once, do not hyperlink anything from defensereview.com or SFTT.org to this website. Both are nothing more than internet tabloids. If that is what you read so be it, none of it will be posted on Professionalsoldiers.com.

You now have my full attention.

Team Sergeant


You're also quoting Wikipedia! Your days posting on this website are almost over. (Wikipedia is not even allowed to be used as a reference in most colleges and other places of higher education.) Drink your koolaid but spare us your comments concerning dragons. This is your last warning.
TXZEN

If you are not getting the hint. STOP or he will BAN YOU!!!!!
Just figured you were like me and needed Glasses.
Just Friendly Advice....
SF_BHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2007, 15:09   #234
txzen
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 39
I am pretty sure I won't change your minds

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a
That is a html of this http://peosoldier.army.mil/factsheets/IBA.pdf "Weight: System—15.7 pounds to 23.9 pounds (size medium)
depending on configuration; OTV–7.7 pounds; SAPI–8.0
pounds per pair (size medium); ESAPI—10.9 per pair (size
medium); DAP—5.3 pounds; ESBI--7.1 pounds per set"

"Insert/Enhanced SAPI (SAPI)/(ESAPI), Deltoid and Axillary
Protector (DAP), and the Enhanced Side Ballistic Insert (ESBI)"

Those number, I think, are the same as the unreferenceable site. So luckily no facts were blurred do to resource chosen. What was interesting was that on that PEO.mil site they said that the medium armor wich I assume medium plates was 23.9 that is with the sides and delt protections also. Sizes go to XXXX-large for OTV and to X-large for the sapi plates. interesting and I don't know how I would find the weight of an xxxx-large with an x-large plate since the point blank site doesn't list many specifics.

Again I just like this topic. Let's hope Mr Bain's armor gets ready for prime time sooner than later.

I have no dog in this fight. I just have been wondering about NIJ practices. The NIJ sites I listed only listed that the evidence wasn't sufficient to believe that the ballistic protection would last over 6 years. I know that is enough under the new 2005 rules, truly though it doesn't mean it has failed any of NIJ's actual physical test, pinnacle didn't convince NIJ officials with paper evidence, I thought that was interesting. I hope that anger tpward pinnacle or at mr neal isn't effecting anyone's official word. I have no evidence it is I don't claim it is but there is a lot of anger at Mr Neal I hope that good products, even from bad people, that meet the needed stats aren't being pushed aside because of embarrassment or harsh words aimed at high officials. Lastly I think I read and posted http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a
that lists the test conditions of the NIJ and there is a wet test it is point 5.7 on page 20. It is no where near the DOD tests, as you know, but it was implemented in the 70's or 80's when they discovered that rain could diminish the effectiveness of kevlar. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/183651.htm that is easier to see it is from the doj and it says that they have wet tests or conditions. It is not the same link though.
txzen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2007, 15:57   #235
SF_BHT
Quiet Professional
 
SF_BHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sneaking back and forth across the Border
Posts: 6,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by txzen
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a
That is a html of this http://peosoldier.army.mil/factsheets/IBA.pdf "Weight: System—15.7 pounds to 23.9 pounds (size medium)
depending on configuration; OTV–7.7 pounds; SAPI–8.0
pounds per pair (size medium); ESAPI—10.9 per pair (size
medium); DAP—5.3 pounds; ESBI--7.1 pounds per set"

"Insert/Enhanced SAPI (SAPI)/(ESAPI), Deltoid and Axillary
Protector (DAP), and the Enhanced Side Ballistic Insert (ESBI)"

Those number, I think, are the same as the unreferenceable site. So luckily no facts were blurred do to resource chosen. What was interesting was that on that PEO.mil site they said that the medium armor wich I assume medium plates was 23.9 that is with the sides and delt protections also. Sizes go to XXXX-large for OTV and to X-large for the sapi plates. interesting and I don't know how I would find the weight of an xxxx-large with an x-large plate since the point blank site doesn't list many specifics.

Again I just like this topic. Let's hope Mr Bain's armor gets ready for prime time sooner than later.

I have no dog in this fight. I just have been wondering about NIJ practices. The NIJ sites I listed only listed that the evidence wasn't sufficient to believe that the ballistic protection would last over 6 years. I know that is enough under the new 2005 rules, truly though it doesn't mean it has failed any of NIJ's actual physical test, pinnacle didn't convince NIJ officials with paper evidence, I thought that was interesting. I hope that anger tpward pinnacle or at mr neal isn't effecting anyone's official word. I have no evidence it is I don't claim it is but there is a lot of anger at Mr Neal I hope that good products, even from bad people, that meet the needed stats aren't being pushed aside because of embarrassment or harsh words aimed at high officials. Lastly I think I read and posted http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a
that lists the test conditions of the NIJ and there is a wet test it is point 5.7 on page 20. It is no where near the DOD tests, as you know, but it was implemented in the 70's or 80's when they discovered that rain could diminish the effectiveness of kevlar. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/183651.htm that is easier to see it is from the doj and it says that they have wet tests or conditions. It is not the same link though.
Look.....
1st Have you not gotten the point, DS is Toast until they Re-Do the product and pass a DoD test. Nothing more to say on that subject. It is dead for DoD.
2nd Who cares on this forum about NIJ... DoD is the standard we go by. As you stated DoD has higher standards for testing.
3rd You have no background, never worn it and have nothing to contribute except Goggle searches.

Put some body armor on, get shot at in a combat zone and come back with some feedback that is backed with experience. Lab test are not combat. That is why DoD is so much harder on their test.

As said before if LEO's or others want to buy and wear it that is their choice. QP's will not.
SF_BHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2007, 16:31   #236
Pete
Quiet Professional
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Fayetteville
Posts: 13,080
One Onethousand

One Onethousand; Two Onethousand; ..............
Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2007, 17:23   #237
jwt5
Guerrilla
 
jwt5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 202
Looks like somone is working hard for that avatar....

As far as body armor goes, I don't know about the rest of you, but there was something comforting about the feeling you'd get wearing the SAPI plates...
jwt5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2007, 06:01   #238
Pete
Quiet Professional
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Fayetteville
Posts: 13,080
Eight Onethous...

Eight Onethous......SPLAT

Should have pulled his reserve.
Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2007, 16:03   #239
SF_BHT
Quiet Professional
 
SF_BHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sneaking back and forth across the Border
Posts: 6,627
Goggle must be down?
SF_BHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:33.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies